Systemic and intracerebroventricular administration of sodium barbital induced a place preference in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have shown previously that 15 mg/kg pentobarbital induces a conditioned place preference (CPP), but it is unsuitable for intracranial administration. Since the long-acting barbiturate, sodium barbital, is soluble at a neutral pH, we tested whether it would induce a CPP when administered centrally. Furthermore, because barbital has a long duration of action, and because we obtained a significant CPP to systemically administered barbital using 30-minute conditioning trials, we tested whether longer conditioning trials would produce a more robust CPP. Using a three-compartment apparatus and an unbiased procedure, we found that systemic administration of barbital induced a significant CPP at 8 and 24 mg/kg, but not 2.7 or 72 mg/kg (i.p.). When rats were conditioned to 24 mg/kg barbital for conditioning trials of (1/2), 1, 3, or 6 hours, only the 30-min conditioning trial produced a CPP. Finally, 240 and 480 microg intracerebroventricular (ICV) barbital induced a significant CPP, but 60 or 120 microg did not. These findings suggest that: (1) like pentobarbital, barbital has reinforcing properties measured in the CPP test; (2) the CPP is impaired, rather than enhanced, by increasing the duration of drug-context pairing; and (3) the reinforcing effects of barbiturates are centrally mediated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".